Sorry guys this mail had problems getting sent.hence the repost.
Hi Morten,
Thank you very much for your review.
>> 1.Consider a scenario,where there are two 10% tasks running on a cpu.The
>> present code will consider the load on this queue to be 2048,while
>> using PJT's metric the load is
Hi Morten,
Thank you very much for your review.
>> 1.Consider a scenario,where there are two 10% tasks running on a cpu.The
>> present code will consider the load on this queue to be 2048,while
>> using PJT's metric the load is calculated to be <1000,rarely exceeding this
>> limit.Although t
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 16 October 2012 17:14, hongbo.zhang wrote:
>> +static int __devinit db8500_cpufreq_cooling_probe(struct platform_device
>> *pdev)
>> +{
>> + struct db8500_cpufreq_cdev *cooling_devs;
Hi Hongbo,
I saw somebody saying this in anoth
On 18 October 2012 23:06, Steve Bannister wrote:
> That's the justification for closing the week before the release of the llct.
> What I'm asking is why we're now closing the MP branch 2 weeks before that.
Because i misread: https://wiki.linaro.org/Cycles :(
I thought that the date of kernel W
That's the justification for closing the week before the release of the llct.
What I'm asking is why we're now closing the MP branch 2 weeks before that.
The proposed date of the 9th Nov is a full 3 weeks before the release on the
29th Nov. Working back from the release date that's one week for
On 18 October 2012 22:42, Steve Bannister wrote:
> Sorry guys - can I get this proposal straight in my head?
>
> 12.11 release - 29/11
> Platforms close - 22/11
> Kernel close- 15/11
> MP close- 08/11
>
> I understand the week of testing for the platforms team. I understand a week
>
Sorry guys - can I get this proposal straight in my head?
12.11 release - 29/11
Platforms close - 22/11
Kernel close- 15/11
MP close- 08/11
I understand the week of testing for the platforms team. I understand a week
prior to that for testing within the kernel team.
What is happen
On 18 October 2012 16:07, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 18 October 2012 13:05, Hongbo Zhang wrote:
>> On 17 October 2012 23:23, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 16 October 2012 17:14, hongbo.zhang wrote:
>
+static struct db8500_trip_point db8500_trips_table[] = {
+ [0] = {
+
On 10/17/2012 08:43 PM, Julius Werner wrote:
>> This is specific to the acpi and should be handled in the
>> processor_idle.c file instead of the cpuidle core code.
>>
>> Could be the function 'acpi_processor_cst_has_changed' the right place
>> to set a dummy power value for the power in the new C-
On 18 October 2012 13:05, Hongbo Zhang wrote:
> On 17 October 2012 23:23, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 16 October 2012 17:14, hongbo.zhang wrote:
>>> +static struct db8500_trip_point db8500_trips_table[] = {
>>> + [0] = {
>>> + .temp = 7,
>>> + .type = THERMAL
Viresh, thanks a lot for all of your comments.
I accept them _by_default_ if no comment from me under them.
On 17 October 2012 23:23, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 16 October 2012 17:14, hongbo.zhang wrote:
>> From: "hongbo.zhang"
>>
>> This diver is based on the thermal management framework in ther
11 matches
Mail list logo
